Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Due to the recent increase personal attacks by a few members, this is a community warning that ODN will be enforcing the rule against this behavior quite strictly now.

    This includes personal attacks (threats or otherwise) directed at other members, staff or otherwise. It also includes attacks directed towards groups of people (Christians, Liberals, Southerners, Muslims, etc...). These sort of attacks are quite different than rational, cogent argumentation against groups of people. Use discreation, be adults, leave your emotions at the door when you debate here.

    The first offense will result in a warning via a PM and public post in the thread of the offending comment. It will also include an editing of the offense or a request from a staff member to remove or rewrite your statement. Any refusal to do so, will immediately result in a suspension of your account at ODN. Creation of a secondary account is not permitted and will result in the banning of both accounts.

    Your second offense will result in an immediate suspension of your account for a period of 3-30 days depending upon the seriousness of the offense.

    Keep in mind, that we are a diverse community. This diverse community is filled with opinionated members who do not necessarily share the same philosophies, ideals, views, etc... If we all did, it wouldn't be a very interesting place to debate now would it?

    Due to this diversity, it is important that despite your disagreement with another's view, that you respect that member as a peer at ODN. Thus, "we attack the argument, not the person". This motto has been forgotton by a number of members lately, some long time regulars, some new to ODN. Regardless, all will be held accountable and are required to abide by the same rules and policies.

    The environment here at ODN has been very mature and respectful for the most part, and we believe that it still is. But I can also see that it is starting to go down that path that was sworn would never be taken, and as a result, we are being very proactive here and feel it is necessary for all members to know how serious we (the staff) are about this issue.

    If you find an offending post that violates our "No personal attack" policy, please send a pm to a staff member or use the "Report this post" icon in that offending post itself. We will review the offense as soon as possible.

    It is not our desire to turn ODN into a community where you have to watch what your step, but rather to kee ODN as a community that promotes intelligent discourse through cogent argumentation and respect for all despite their views, regardless of how "radical" they may seem.

    Thank you.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    I think we are having much less problem with this now, the real problem was around the election, but tempers have cooled, generally.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Here hear, Apok - we are not only peers in debate - we are also, being human, all fallible 'straw men'.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    88
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Could you perhaps give me some examples of what constitutes a personal attack. I'm a bit unclear where the line is.

    Thanks
    - Mike
    MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY
    "Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice." - Nelson Mandela, 2005

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Here and Now
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike
    Could you perhaps give me some examples of what constitutes a personal attack. I'm a bit unclear where the line is.
    Yeah...me, too. Sarcasm is tool most of us can not debate without. lol. I'm a little worried that if there is going to be a crackdown, we're all going to have be very borrring. I don't want to mistakenly break the rules. I understand what the rules say, but when I make a comment like, "Can you NOT see the contradiction???" am I attacking the person because it is a personal question, but is it really an "attack". It's a blurred line to me. Some examples would be helpful.
    Souls of the animal kingdom: eagle, fox, bottle-nose dolphin, octopus, house cat. Okay, let's jump this jump. -- Rod Kimble

  6. #6
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    The reason for the warning, was due to blantant and aggressive, personal and intentiona ad hominem attacks. Name calling, swearing, claiming others were idiots, etc...

    During the time of the election, it got pretty bad in some of the threads and in the shoutbox. Only a few were violating these rules, but these few, were old time regular members. And if they could do it and get away with it, then the rest of the community may believe that either a) they can do it as well, or b) it isn't a big deal.

    In other words, the warning was only given because there was an abuse of the allowance of sarcasm here. The use of sarcasm as it is seen now, is fine.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  7. #7
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike
    Could you perhaps give me some examples of what constitutes a personal attack. I'm a bit unclear where the line is.

    Thanks
    An ad hom is short of ad hominum(sp?) which is a fallacy in which one attacks the speaker instead of the speaker's argument. Example:

    Speaker 1: "Apokalupsis should advertise his website through yahoo to attract more participants."

    Speaker 2: "You don't know anything about advertising because you're a moron!"

    Speaker 2 has made an ad hom attack on the character of speaker 1. He has not actually addressed the merits of the argument (using yahoo to advertise ODN). I think the pitfall that many (myself included) fall into is when a debator is stating something that one knows to be false.

    Occasionaly we have heard from a poster named Southie who claims to have a degree in criminology, but also states that people accused of crimes are NOT innocent until proven guilty. What are we to do here? The trick here is to attack Southie's argument and attack Southie's status as an expert without attacking Southie.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    88
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    Speaker 1: "Apokalupsis should advertise his website through yahoo to attract more participants."
    He does, thats how I got here!

    Thanks for the advice Apok + Zharvic.
    - Mike
    MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY
    "Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice." - Nelson Mandela, 2005

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike
    Could you perhaps give me some examples of what constitutes a personal attack. I'm a bit unclear where the line is.

    Thanks

    'FruitandNut is a stupid moron' :* . Would be considered a personal attack that is directed deliberately at the individual, and totally lacks any redeeming factors as it totally ignores 'the debate',

    I feel that FruitandNut's argument lacks the thought, sense, sanity and gratitas that best befits a moron, is indirect in the personal, and brings the debate into focus.
    Last edited by FruitandNut; February 19th, 2005 at 04:28 AM.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  10. #10
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    would this be an example of singling out a group and rendering this post unacceptable?

    the rule:
    . "It also includes attacks directed towards groups of people (Christians, Liberals, Southerners, Muslims, etc...)."

    I'm tired of the "sissification" of the left. It's like a little yap-dog bouncing about the big dawg. Much noise, no action.
    attacking a group, (the left)

    It's called "proactiveness". If we left it to libbies, we'd be facing more N Korea's.
    Libbies? No group being targeted there.

    Leaving it to the left, is always a sure fire way to get nothing done in a hurry.
    Once again, an entire group being negatively treated with no evidence to back this claim.

    You guys really need to quit listening to Michael Moore. He's been debunked so many times it's pitiful...I don't know what is worse, him being so slammed around, or his worshippers plugging their ears and covering their eyes and pretending that Moore can still stand straight.
    So anyone who agrees with Moore is a "worshipper"would that be like a "Bush zombie?"

    That's directed at ANYONE who still believes in Moore's rhetoric and claims.
    Once again, if you disagree with you on moore then someone is an ear plugged worshippers?

    Right to point out the fallacy, you just are confused as to which and why. You baffoon.
    This one was a personal Joke, but how do we tell a joke or sarcasm as a personal attack? It gets to be a blurred line.

    It results in that very thing, and the worst part is, most liberals think they are "helping" not hurting. While intentions may be good, the results are horrible. Conservativism preserves Democracy, liberalism perverts it into socialism/marxism/fascism.
    Unsupported opinions of liberals and their thinking. Conservative...good....liberal...bad!...Do you really think it is that simple?

    Not once. And the fact that you think they did, is what we like to call "delusional".

    This person is being called delusional because of his opinions.


    This includes personal attacks (threats or otherwise) directed at other members, staff or otherwise."

    THAT's what should be monitored. The rest "Libbies" , delusional, ear plugged worshippers

    Claiming "the left" cannot do anything but complain and screw things up isn't attacking a group?

    I could go on but I find that attacks against "Libbies" as well as atheists must put up with more abuse on this board than the conservative right.....So, these "new" enforcements MUST be weighed both ways, in the past they have not............................:O)
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Here and Now
    Posts
    3,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberclown
    I could go on but I find that attacks against "Libbies" as well as atheists must put up with more abuse on this board than the conservative right.....So, these "new" enforcements MUST be weighed both ways, in the past they have not............................:O)
    CC, take a peek into any religious thread and you'll see a slew of attacks toward the Christians, too. It works both ways.
    Souls of the animal kingdom: eagle, fox, bottle-nose dolphin, octopus, house cat. Okay, let's jump this jump. -- Rod Kimble

  12. #12
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberclown
    would this be an example of singling out a group and rendering this post unacceptable?
    You seem to be confused as to what is an ad hom, and what is acceptable sarcasm. Since day one, acceptable sarcasm, wit, jabs, etc... have been allowed. That will never change, I don't want it changed, my rule is golden in my home here at ODN. Learn it, live by it here while you are my guest.

    First, my rules which are publicly stated:

    Try to remember that the best way to change someone else's position to yours, is to challenge the idea, not attack the poster. Using sarcasm, humor, or wit in your debate style is perfectly acceptable as long as it doesn't cross that line of "flaming" the opposition.

    Flaming defined:

    Flaming - Blatant and aggressive ad hominem attacks (personal attacks) are unnacceptable. While often times, one may wish to engage in sarcasm or a bit of wit, please exercise caution when doing so. Granted, going "over the line" is subjective, but it is determined and enforced by the administration.

    Now, let's examine your select pieces of quotes here...
    I'm tired of the "sissification" of the left. It's like a little yap-dog bouncing about the big dawg. Much noise, no action.
    It's an attack on a liberals, yes. Flame that crosses the line? No. I gave my reasons for believing as I do, in argument form. This statement was a rant, it was a jab. Being overly sensitive and thin-skinned is IMHO, a part of that "sissification" btw.

    It's called "proactiveness". If we left it to libbies, we'd be facing more N Korea's.
    Libbies? No group being targeted there.
    You seem to be thinking that "if a group is targeted, then it must be a flame", and that is absurd. This is no flame, it is a statement of belief concerning the liberal philosophy of appeasement.

    Leaving it to the left, is always a sure fire way to get nothing done in a hurry.
    Once again, an entire group being negatively treated with no evidence to back this claim.
    It may help if you provided links so I can remember the context. Regardless, this isn't what is referred to in the op. A group is targeted and a statement of belief is made about them. Whether it is ad hom or not depends upon the context. However, even if it is, it STILL does not violate my rules.

    You guys really need to quit listening to Michael Moore. He's been debunked so many times it's pitiful...I don't know what is worse, him being so slammed around, or his worshippers plugging their ears and covering their eyes and pretending that Moore can still stand straight.
    So anyone who agrees with Moore is a "worshipper"would that be like a "Bush zombie?"
    Yes, at attack directed at the Mooreites. That's called an ad hom. However, I think you are still confused as to what the op concerned itself with. Were you even here when people we swearing, tying up the filter, using the shoutbox as their arena? Go to the archive in the shoutbox. I've deleted nothing. Also, look for threads around the time of the election if you want to be brought up to speed. However, this statement you bring up here, does not qualify. Sorry.

    That's directed at ANYONE who still believes in Moore's rhetoric and claims.
    Once again, if you disagree with you on moore then someone is an ear plugged worshippers?
    It isn't disagreeing with "me"...it is IGNORING PROVEN falsities that Moore claimed and FOOLED his fans. Many of those fans, are now ex-fans as a result. It's not a matter of "Moore says X, Apok says Y", it's a matter of many commentators, researchers, etc... taking Moore's claims (referring to F911 here) and showing you step by step how he completely manipulated facts to make the average MooreFanBoy (that's called an ad hom) think that they actually had some truth to stand on. It's no longer a matter of contention by sophisticated journalists/minds, 911 was bunk with a brief shred of truth to throw in so that it couldn't be claimed that Moore COMPLETELY lied/manipulated/edited facts, only MOSTLY. It's like Moore's FanBoys wanting to argue that the earth is still flat because Moore said so, despite the overwhelming evidence against the claim.

    Right to point out the fallacy, you just are confused as to which and why. You baffoon.
    This one was a personal Joke, but how do we tell a joke or sarcasm as a personal attack? It gets to be a blurred line.
    The last 1/2 of your statement makes the statement as a whole, contradictory. You just said you couuld tell it was a joke at the same time asking how to tell if it was. You obviuosly have no problem discerning between joke or serious personal attack.

    And if you are ever seriously in doubt (to date, NOT A SINGLE POSTER to my knowledge ever has been confused as to whether an attack was personal or playful), ask a staff member. That's THEIR job to determine (also stated in the rules).

    It results in that very thing, and the worst part is, most liberals think they are "helping" not hurting. While intentions may be good, the results are horrible. Conservativism preserves Democracy, liberalism perverts it into socialism/marxism/fascism.
    Unsupported opinions of liberals and their thinking. Conservative...good....liberal...bad!...Do you really think it is that simple?
    This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread's topic. There is no flaming, no ad hom, it is a statement of belief about the opinion of what one believes to be an intellectually corrupt philosophy. If a statement has no support, then REFUTE or CHALLENGE it. That's what debate is all about. Simply because you are offended that you are included in that group, doesn't mean that it was a personal attack, it merely means (in this case) that you are included in said group.

    It's like saying "Christians are one-sighted. They can't see the big picture. As a result, if left unchecked, we will fall into a state of oppressive theocracy and forced values of a confused people who exercise hope/faith over reason".

    THIS IS NOT A QUALIFIED AD HOM. Nor is it a flame. And it is certainly NOT what is referred to in the op.

    Not once. And the fact that you think they did, is what we like to call "delusional".

    This person is being called delusional because of his opinions.
    Ad hom, yes. Being overly sensitive, also "yes". Called so due to their OPINIONS? No. They are stating them as fact, not opinion.

    And on a Zhavric sarcasm scale, this was a 2 (10 being the highest). I don't come close to being sarcastically efficient like my friends Zhav and Boog. Their creativity far surpasses mine.

    /props to the mentally challenged yet creatively gifted Booger-Zhavric duo.

    oops...ad hom.

    This includes personal attacks (threats or otherwise) directed at other members, staff or otherwise."

    THAT's what should be monitored. The rest "Libbies" , delusional, ear plugged worshippers

    Claiming "the left" cannot do anything but complain and screw things up isn't attacking a group?
    Not in the sense you are wanting to make it out to be, no. Attacking the arguments of a group, is acceptable. Using sarcasm in a debate, is acceptable.

    I could go on but I find that attacks against "Libbies" as well as atheists must put up with more abuse on this board than the conservative right.....So, these "new" enforcements MUST be weighed both ways, in the past they have not............................:O)
    Well, here you have no clue what you are saying. There is an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of threads/posts/comments that attack the conservative right and Christians than there are that of liberals. Also, the staff is more liberal than conservatives. Also, the ONLY 2 people that have been banned for life on this site, were both conservative Christians.

    Frankly, I find your complaint here, ridiculous. It has always been the case that the most targeted group here is Christians. It has always been the case that the most sarcastic/jabbing group, are non-Christian liberals. It has always been the case, and will CONTINUE to be the case, that this is PERFECTLY acceptable.

    What the op is in reference to, is the sudden change from the acceptable, to complete disregard for fellow members, no humor, blantant, aggressive attacks that were personally made. The community spoke up about it (it wasn't just staff that was noticing it) and a public warning was made. As a result, those types of insults were no longer present.

    Your comlaints here, are unfounded and are not relevant to this particlar warning nor the reason FOR this warning.

    If you seek to change ODN policy, and make it so absolutely NO ad hom is allowed, nor any sarcasm, please start a new thread. I'm all for discussing change...however, to be honest, it has little chance of actually getting "passed". As stated above by HL, it would get rather boring, rather quickly.

    My advice, if you are truly seeking to amend the current rules, would be rather to become a little more thick-skinned.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  13. #13
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    by HL
    CC, take a peek into any religious thread and you'll see a slew of attacks toward the Christians, too. It works both ways.
    I don't step into the religious topics mostly because all the arguments boil down to the same opionions being repeated. Yes, I am sure that Christians get bashed in there. You may have noticed that I am not one of them. (bashers).

    by apokYou seem to be confused as to what is an ad hom, and what is acceptable sarcasm. Since day one, acceptable sarcasm, wit, jabs, etc... have been allowed. That will never change, I don't want it changed, my rule is golden in my home here at ODN. Learn it, live by it here while you are my guest.
    Thank you for clearing up sarcasm is as opposed to personal attacks. The reason I asked that one is because I have done it in the past thinking there was nothing wrong with a little jocular jabbing.

    Quote:

    It's called "proactiveness". If we left it to libbies, we'd be facing more N Korea's.
    Libbies? No group being targeted there.

    You seem to be thinking that "if a group is targeted, then it must be a flame", and that is absurd. This is no flame, it is a statement of belief concerning the liberal philosophy of appeasement.
    See, I think that "libbies" would not be jabbing, it is worded in a way as to be insulting, not sarcastic.
    You did say no group could be attacked. Liberal people would be a group, I was just attempting to point out that the lines again become blurred as to what one's definition of what exactly cojnstitutes a group. Which groups are protected and which are fair game. In other words, your statement infers that I can say that all the "Cons"(conservative right) were nothing more than a bunch of nazi's trying to give America back to the ideas it broke from and anyone who thinks differently is an idiot. That to me sounds offensive but...?

    I am trying to point out that (by the way I agree with the rule as I understand it now to be) "groups" can be vague when it comes to such personal topics as religion and politics.

    The last 1/2 of your statement makes the statement as a whole, contradictory. You just said you couuld tell it was a joke at the same time asking how to tell if it was. You obviuosly have no problem discerning between joke or serious personal attack.
    True. I was speaking for everyone who may not understand it. But no one asked me to so I see the pointlessness of it.

    This includes personal attacks (threats or otherwise) directed at other members, staff or otherwise."
    THAT's what should be monitored. The rest "Libbies" , delusional, ear plugged worshippers

    Claiming "the left" cannot do anything but complain and screw things up isn't attacking a group?

    Not in the sense you are wanting to make it out to be, no. Attacking the arguments of a group, is acceptable. Using sarcasm in a debate, is acceptable.
    Got it. I think. So if I said that the christian zombies were taking this country to hades it would not be an attack? Thanks, I've really never understood group attacks from personal ones. I'm sure you have noticed that I conduct myself here with more than my share of fair play.

    Well, here you have no clue what you are saying. There is an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of threads/posts/comments that attack the conservative right and Christians than there are that of liberals. Also, the staff is more liberal than conservatives. Also, the ONLY 2 people that have been banned for life on this site, were both conservative Christians.
    You are the expert there so I surely retract the words from that myopic and misguided opinion.

    Frankly, I find your complaint here, ridiculous. It has always been the case that the most targeted group here is Christians. It has always been the case that the most sarcastic/jabbing group, are non-Christian liberals
    The only "targeting" I've seen is when christians try to assert beleifs as facts. I would expect to be hammered more if I did so. Though I claim I am an atheist, I have never claimed I am right.
    Your complaints here, are unfounded and are not relevant to this particlar warning nor the reason FOR this warning.
    (and I disagree, repectfully)

    Already I am confused. Are you saying that because I brought up some examples of what I thought was blurred the lines of the rule that am officially being warned now? Do what you wish, though I think that in light of my past track record and (to the point I haven't gotten to yet) that that would be being harsh. I did not flame on anyone nor attack any group, all I did was to use some of your posts to make my points as to why the rule could be confusing. But an offical warning?.....okay...

    If you seek to change ODN policy, and make it so absolutely NO ad hom is allowed, nor any sarcasm, please start a new thread. I'm all for discussing change...however, to be honest, it has little chance of actually getting "passed". As stated above by HL, it would get rather boring, rather quickly.
    Why would I wish to change a forum I have done nothing but brag about it's members? Discuss change if you like, bit I never planned on getting anything "passed".

    My advice, if you are truly seeking to amend the current rules, would be rather to become a little more thick-skinned.
    As I said, I wish to change nothing, only clarify where the line is as to what a qualifies as a "group".
    I started off this reply as a tongue in cheek approach to a clarification.(that unfelt element) I used your post because I meant to inflict my humorous but genuine concern about where the lines to the rule are drawn directly to the guy stating the rule. I did get off topic on religion, though it often serves as a trump card it doesn't pass by atheists as facts, though I was attempting to be jovial, (even though somehow I apparently did not come across as anywhere near humorous) I was wrong to rate how many of who feels what way even if I was still getting in here often as before. maybe that's part of the problem.

    I absolutely disagree that I broke the stated rule and feel a warning, (if that is what that was) is misdirected.....whether I'm thin skinned or not.....*g*...........:O)
    Last edited by Cyberclown; February 18th, 2005 at 04:27 PM.
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

  14. #14
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberclown
    Thank you for clearing up sarcasm is as opposed to personal attacks. The reason I asked that one is because I have done it in the past thinking there was nothing wrong with a little jocular jabbing.
    I don't recall anything you have posted being out of line. That doesn't mean it wasn't...I just can't remember if it was the case. Usually, if it was, and it was noticed, you'd get at least a small warning in the thread, if more serious, via pm.

    See, I think that "libbies" would not be jabbing, it is worded in a way as to be insulting, not sarcastic.
    Do you mearn the term itself "libbies"?

    You did say no group could be attacked.
    No no, I meant in the context that the heated slurs were given. In other words, what was happening was that people were not only saying "You
    #@$%$# idiot!" They were saying "You ^(@#$%#$% {insert group here}". That's a very basic explanation, but as you can see, it started to get pretty bad. Never out of control really though. This op served as a proactive warning (along w/ personal pm's sent by staff to multiple members on all fences of the various issues).

    It isn't that "groups" are immune to attack, nor are people for that matter. It's that the OVER the LINE attacks that are not permitted and being addressed in this warning, also extends TO groups, not just individuals.

    In other words, your statement infers that I can say that all the "Cons"(conservative right) were nothing more than a bunch of nazi's trying to give America back to the ideas it broke from and anyone who thinks differently is an idiot. That to me sounds offensive but...?
    pfffft. Apparently you haven't met Zhavric and Booger. Your statement is very similar to many of theirs. I don't take offense to it. If it got out of control, got more vulgar, etc... obviously we'd have to step in.

    I understand that a large part of what people find offensive is purely subjective. Unfortunately, I cannot enforce something that ALL people will be happy with. I try to enforce what I believe that most people would be happy with. I have no problem w/ conforming with what the masses of the people want. If they want absolutely NO ad homs, no attacks whatsoever, well, I'll consider it. Admittedly, it won't swing the other direction...that is, if they want a free-for-all, well, I can't allow that. I personally hate that, and it is one of the reasons I started ODN.

    I am however, going to start 2 new forums soon, each w/ different rules than the public forms. One will be much more strict in rule regulation, the other much more lenient. This way, at least some people on the extremes can have something. But IMO, I think most people are happy w/ the medium level of allowable sarcasm.

    I am trying to point out that (by the way I agree with the rule as I understand it now to be) "groups" can be vague when it comes to such personal topics as religion and politics.
    I agree. Which is why context is important. If we are talking about liberal philosophy on morality, does it necessary include all liberals? No. There may be some conservative moralists in the liberal group...that is, they believe in all things liberal except morality, then they are quite conservative. So context is definitely important, and it equally important is for the reader to understand that not all of said group can fit snuggly into said statement/argument. There will always be exceptions, and there will always be the need for context.

    Claiming "the left" cannot do anything but complain and screw things up isn't attacking a group?
    Of course it is. But 1) I've not made such a statement , and 2) what would the context of the statement be, and 3) is enough argumentation provided to give the statement truth as a conclusion? Point is, it doesn't HAVE to be an ad hom by default.

    Got it. I think. So if I said that the christian zombies were taking this country to hades it would not be an attack?
    Of course it IS an attack...but not one that I'm concerned with. I would expect responders to challenge the statement, and make the poster look pretty silly if they couldn't at least support it. Regardless, it isn't the kind of "crossing the line" that is referred to in the op.

    The only "targeting" I've seen is when christians try to assert beleifs as facts. I would expect to be hammered more if I did so.
    Christians targetting others you mean?

    Already I am confused. Are you saying that because I brought up some examples of what I thought was blurred the lines of the rule that am officially being warned now?
    No no no. Of course not. "For this warning" refers to the op (opening post). That is, what you are objecting to, or providing as examples as attacks, are NOT what the op warning is addressing.

    Do what you wish, though I think that in light of my past track record and (to the point I haven't gotten to yet) that that would be being harsh. I did not flame on anyone nor attack any group, all I did was to use some of your posts to make my points as to why the rule could be confusing. But an offical warning?.....okay...
    There is no official warning here. You misread the statement.

    Why would I wish to change a forum I have done nothing but brag about it's members? Discuss change if you like, bit I never planned on getting anything "passed".
    You missed the key word..."IF you seek..."

    I absolutely disagree that I broke the stated rule and feel a warning, (if that is what that was) is misdirected.....whether I'm thin skinned or not.....*g*...........:O)
    Yer still thin skinned and you've been raiding Granpa's "medicine cabinet" a bit too much there buddy.
    :red:
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    The Bunny Ranch
    Posts
    2,680
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Personally I have NO problem with Insults towards Floridians..SO, keep them coming
    In fact maybe that could be our acceptable insult "What, you from Florida?"
    Now I am a Native Floridian, I may be one of the only true native Floridians left.So, since I am not insulted by this could it be considered our "safe" insult?
    Yeah... but then some other Florida Dweller will join ODN and ruin it for the rest of the population..It ALWAYS happens!

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    I live in the heart of my head.
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    I agree. Which is why context is important. If we are talking about liberal philosophy on morality, does it necessary include all liberals? No. There may be some conservative moralists in the liberal group...that is, they believe in all things liberal except morality, then they are quite conservative. So context is definitely important, and it equally important is for the reader to understand that not all of said group can fit snuggly into said statement/argument. There will always be exceptions, and there will always be the need for context.

    The only "targeting" I've seen is when christians try to assert beleifs as facts. I would expect to be hammered more if I did so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Christians targetting others you mean?

    Apok: I am a Centrist and a Theist, my campus full of extreme liberals. On the first day of class our professor said “All Republicans are ‘going to burn in hell’". The Right-Wing complained afterward, but sat silently in class. Now, imagine a Right-Wing Christian saying in class, “all Lefties are going to ‘burn in hell’". I believe their heads would spin. I see a double standard everyday. It ranges from religion to politics to race. One professor thinks all White people are Nazis, and he projects his racism on to Whites. There is all sorts of hate every where, everyday, and nobody seems to recognizes that our personal convictions are inalienable rights as is the freedom of speech, but the speech does not include hate speech.

    What people fail to recognize is that everyone has an ideology, philosophy, worldview, which often includes a religious or non-religious perspective. All the hate is appalling. I cannot, do not, and will probably never understand people who want the freedom to express their precious world view while simultaneously attempting to shut down and stomp out the views of others. Christians did it to the Jews, Christians did it to Christians, Muslims and Jews do it to each other, and Liberals and Atheists do it to Christians.

    Most everything and I mean everything is opinion anyway. Let us not forget that not a single philosopher that can shut the door on God or Atheism, so why should you, or I think that we can shut the door on God or Atheism, or anyone else. I do not mind people expressing their views about what they believe. However, it is offensive when people start projecting their beliefs on to entire classes of people.

  17. #17
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Ophelia, while I agree with your sentiments, I see no relevancy of it to this thread. How does that relate to the op?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbell
    Personally I have NO problem with Insults towards Floridians..SO, keep them coming
    In fact maybe that could be our acceptable insult "What, you from Florida?"
    Now I am a Native Floridian, I may be one of the only true native Floridians left.So, since I am not insulted by this could it be considered our "safe" insult?
    Yeah... but then some other Florida Dweller will join ODN and ruin it for the rest of the population..It ALWAYS happens!
    I find Floridians have a pithy, acid and Limey sense of humour that can be a bit fruity at times.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike
    Could you perhaps give me some examples of what constitutes a personal attack. I'm a bit unclear where the line is.

    Thanks

    As someone who is on record as having been the first member of this community to ever receive a death threat here...let me say that you are correct...it is unclear where the line is.

    Just let the staff know about anything you feel is a personal attack directed at you personally -- not your argument or position -- and they will handle it. Also be sure and have a tough skin. This is no place for wimps.


    Examples:

    Unacceptable:
    You are a stupid moron

    Acceptable:
    Your argument is moronic and overly simple


    Unacceptable:
    What world are you from? Are you nuts? Why in the Hell would you ever think that? I know you are mentally challenged and all...but come on.

    Acceptable:
    This position is baseless, has no substantiating facts and is lacking cogency, content and dare I say...even a reasonably intelligent point.

    I think there are many here who would agree I am quite skilled at leaning over that intangible line...but as Apok told me when I first got my hind end spanked..."attack the argument not the person" Follow this rule and add to that "Do not incite or call for criminal violence against a particular person or group here without first making one hell of an argument as to why it is justified."

    Cheers

    Happy mudslinging .
    Last edited by Spartacus; February 19th, 2005 at 05:16 AM.

  20. #20
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Personal Attacks Enforcement

    I don't recall anything you have posted being out of line. That doesn't mean it wasn't...I just can't remember if it was the case. Usually, if it was, and it was noticed, you'd get at least a small warning in the thread, if more serious, via pm.
    Nope, never been out of line in here.

    Do you mearn the term itself "libbies"?
    I meant using insulting terms, and I believe most liberals would find being called "Libbies" is an insult to all of them as a group. Personally, I don't care anyway, as I aid, I was simply trying to narrow the definition of "specific groups".


    Christians targetting others you mean?
    Not exactly, I was speaking toward the faithful often get overly defensive of their views. I know Zhav does plenty for the non believer's side of things. But I'm not zhav.

    You missed the key word..."IF you seek..."
    But the way you worded it "implied" that I wanted to get anything passed here when clearly I don't.

    No no no. Of course not. "For this warning" refers to the op (opening post). That is, what you are objecting to, or providing as examples as attacks, are NOT what the op warning is addressing.
    That is what I thought but the seriousness of your initial reply to me put that in the shadow of things, I was just making sure.

    Yer still thin skinned and you've been raiding Granpa's "medicine cabinet" a bit too much there buddy

    So now are you are making personal attacks? It seems to me that your last line was intended to be insulting and not advisable. If you were trying to be humorous then it was as lost on me as mine was on yours.

    So you get to break your own rules? If it was an attempt at being funny you missed the mark even more so than I did.

    by spart:
    As someone who is on record as having been the first member of this community to ever receive a death threat here...let me say that you are correct...it is unclear where the line is
    WHOA!.... Now THAT would be a personal attack. 1. Was the person who threatend you kicked out out? They certainly should have been. Also, from what I know about you if they were to actually attempt anything I am sure you could make them regret their act.

    Also be sure and have a tough skin. This is no place for wimps.
    I am not trying to rehash old stuff but as I recall when I won the DOM award, YOU were quite thin skinned about it. I was willing to let you have it anyway. Showing I was neither a wimp or thin skinned.

    I believe apok is way off. He obviously does have thin skin himself. But from all my debates in here it is easy to see that I am quite thick skinned. Though anyone with a thick skull may not realize that............*g*....:O)
    When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, there will be peace..........jimi hendrix.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Personal Responsibility
    By LionsnTigers in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 26th, 2004, 02:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •